I''m getting a failure on make test when trying to install this from tarball. Does anyone use this and is there an rpm for it? I know this isn''t a Centos question, but I thought I''d ask. -- <<JAV>>
Joe Polk wrote:> I''m getting a failure on make test when trying to install this from tarball. > Does anyone use this and is there an rpm for it? I know this isn''t a Centos > question, but I thought I''d ask.I was under the impression that you only needed SpamCopURI if you were using the 2.x versions of SpamAssassin? Starting with 3.0 they include that plugin by default, no? I used SpamCopURI but upgraded to SpamAssassin 3 when it came out. It works great. --Ajay
> I was under the impression that you only needed SpamCopURI if you > were using the 2.x versions of SpamAssassin? Starting with 3.0 they > include that plugin by default, no? > > I used SpamCopURI but upgraded to SpamAssassin 3 when it came out. > It works great.But Centos Repositories don''t include 3.0 and I don''t want to manually upgrade. -- <<JAV>>
Joe Polk wrote:>>I was under the impression that you only needed SpamCopURI if you >>were using the 2.x versions of SpamAssassin? Starting with 3.0 they >>include that plugin by default, no? >> >>I used SpamCopURI but upgraded to SpamAssassin 3 when it came out. >> It works great. > > But Centos Repositories don''t include 3.0 and I don''t want to manually upgrade.IMO, stuff like SpamAssassin and Clam Antivirus can''t be kept in a 5 year release-cycle. I''ve found some major show-stopper bugs with SpamAssassin 2.x that were corrected in 3.x. So while I use CentOS to keep 99% of the packages in a stable release cycle, I update a few packages manually. And it''s super easy to build an RPM for SpamAssassin: Grab the latest tarball, install the rpm-devel package and then: rpmbuild -tb Mail-SpamAssassin-3.0.2.tar.gz --Ajay
On Wed, 23 Mar 2005, Ajay Sharma wrote:> IMO, stuff like SpamAssassin and Clam Antivirus can''t be kept in a 5 > year release-cycle. I''ve found some major show-stopper bugs with > SpamAssassin 2.x that were corrected in 3.x. So while I use CentOS > to keep 99% of the packages in a stable release cycle, I update a > few packages manually. And it''s super easy to build an RPM for > SpamAssassin: > > Grab the latest tarball, install the rpm-devel package and then: > > rpmbuild -tb Mail-SpamAssassin-3.0.2.tar.gzRed Hat or CentOS packages that have an epoch set can be problematic in this regard, since %{EPOCH} trumps %{VERSION}-%{RELEASE} when it comes to upgrades. I was surprised at how many packages have explicit epochs. On CentOS 4.0, some are quite high: aspell-en weighs in at 50! Try it yourself: # to sort by epoch rpm -qa --qf ''%{EPOCH}: %{NAME}\n'' | grep ''^[0-9]'' | sort -n # sort by package name rpm -qa --qf ''%{EPOCH}: %{NAME}\n'' | grep ''^[0-9]'' | sort -t'' '' -k 2 If you build your own packages, make sure that you set the epoch to the same level as the officially released packages; otherwise, your yum or up2date operations may mistakenly revert packages. --Paul Heinlein <heinlein@madboa.com>
> Red Hat or CentOS packages that have an epoch set can be problematic > in this regard, since %{EPOCH} trumps %{VERSION}-%{RELEASE} when it > comes to upgrades. I was surprised at how many packages have > explicit epochs. On CentOS 4.0, some are quite high: aspell-en > weighs in at 50! Try it yourself: > > # to sort by epoch > rpm -qa --qf ''%{EPOCH}: %{NAME}\n'' | grep ''^[0-9]'' | sort -n > # sort by package name > rpm -qa --qf ''%{EPOCH}: %{NAME}\n'' | grep ''^[0-9]'' | sort -t'' '' -k 2 > > If you build your own packages, make sure that you set the epoch to > the same level as the officially released packages; otherwise, your > yum or up2date operations may mistakenly revert packages. > > --Paul Heinlein <heinlein@madboa.com>...and this is why I''ll stick with this release. :) I don''t know nothin'' ''bout birthin'' no rpm from tarball! (And if you haven''t seen Gone With The Wind, that will make no sense). :) -- <<JAV>>